[926] Est., ll. 9813-17; Itin., l.c.

[927] Est., ll. 9748-88; Itin., 367. “A close Pentecoste, mien escient le samedi,” says Ambrose, l. 9748; the Itinerarium says “Die Dominica, scilicet in octavis Sanctae Trinitatis”; but Bohadin, 303, says 23 Jomada I, which agrees with Ambrose. The French translation of Bohadin has erroneously “8 juin.”

[928] Est., ll. 9797-802; Bohadin, 304.

[929] Itin., 368; Bohadin, l.c.

[930] Est., ll. 9806-10; Itin., l.c.

[931] Est., ll. 9809-13; Itin., 368, 369. Bohadin, 304, says the Franks left Natroun and advanced to Beit Nuba on Wednesday, 27 Jomada I; i. e. June 10.

[932] Bohadin, 304, 305.

[933] Bohadin, 305. The French translation gives the date as “le 19 de Jomada premier,” which would be June 2. Possibly “19” is a misprint for “29.”

[934] Est., ll. 9835-64; Itin., 359.

[935] Cf. Est., ll. 9885-922, and Itin., 371, 372.

[936] Est., ll. 9947-10088; Bohadin, l.c.; Imad-ed-Din, apud Abu Shama, 55; all with date June 16; Itin., 373, with date June 17.

[937] Est., ll. 10140-210; Itin., 379-81.

[938] Est., ll. 10213-59; Itin., 381, 382.

[939] Bohadin, 306.

[940] Imad-ed-Din, apud Abu Shama, 55, says Saladin heard on 9 Jomada II (= Monday, June 22) that the Franks had set out in the night. Ambrose (l. 10304) says merely “Sunday.”

[941] Est., ll. 10265-312; Itin., 383-5; cf. Bohadin, 306.

[942] Bohadin, 306, 307; cf. Imad-ed-Din, 55, Est., ll. 10313-23, and Itin., 385.

[943] Bohadin, 307.

[944] Among the Saracens, according to Bohadin (l.c.), it was reported that one of this second party of scouts was Richard himself, who, disguised as an Arab, made a circuit of the Egyptians’ encampment and then, having found them all sound asleep, rode back and called up his men. Such a thing is by no means impossible; but if it were a fact, it would probably have been known to the Franks, whereas it was evidently not known even as a rumour to Ambrose, who would surely have made the most of it in his poetic story.

[945] Bohadin, 306, 307.

[946] Itin., 385-7; cf. Est., ll. 10329-421.

[947] Bohadin, 307, 308.

[948] Cf. Bohadin, 308, 309, with Est., ll. 10435-511, and Itin., 387-90.

[949] Est., ll. 10512-64; Itin., 390, 391.

[950] Bohadin, 309. He calls the day “Tuesday, 11th of Jomada II”; but as 11 Jomada II in that year was a Wednesday, it is doubtful whether he means Tuesday 10 (= June 23) or Wednesday 11 (= June 24). The former is almost certainly the true date. Roger of Howden, iii. 182, says the affair occurred “on the eve of S. John”; Imad-ed-Din, apud Abu Shama, 55, says the Frank army set out on the night preceding June 22; the Estoire, l. 10304, says it set out “un seir de diemaine,” which thus seems to have been Sunday June 21; and both Estoire and Itinerarium clearly indicate that the fight took place on the second morning after. Imad-ed-Din, l.c., locates it at “El Hesy”; but we cannot possibly set aside the plain and unanimous testimony of Bohadin and the Frank writers as to Kuweilfeh. The Franks do not mention El Hesy at all on this occasion; Bohadin makes it clear that both parties passed through that locality on their way. It seems plain also that in this case, as in an earlier one, “El Hesy” stands not for the village now so called, but for the Wady, and more especially for its western end, or head. In one place the actual phrase used is “the source of El Hesy” (“la source d’El Hasy,” French edition of Bohadin, l.c.; “caput El Hissi,” Schultens’ edition, 232).

[951] Bohadin, 311-15.

[952] Cf. Bohadin, 309, Est., ll. 10565-75, and Itin., 392. Bohadin says they got back to their camp on “Friday, 16 Jomada II,” which is self-contradictory, as 16 Jomada II (= June 26) that year was Monday. He may have meant either Monday June 26 or Friday 30; he may even have meant both, and confused them together. The indications in Estoire and Itinerarium are vague, but they seem to imply a two days’ journey from the Round Cistern to Ramlah; thus Ramlah may have been reached on the 26th and the “camp” proper, at Beit Nuba, on the 30th. Richard seems not to have gone to Beit Nuba at all, but to his former quarters at Castle Arnold; R. Coggeshall, 40.

[953] Est., ll. 10576-626; Itin., 393, 394.

[954] Est., ll. 10639-64; Itin., 394, 395.

[955] R. Coggeshall, 39, 40. Ralf says Richard caused Saladin’s captured envoys to be shot to death with arrows by his own servants in the sight of the host, neither portion of it (that is, his own adherents or those of Burgundy) knowing whence the victims came nor why they were thus slain. It seems hardly possible that Ambrose should have omitted to mention so strange an incident if it really was seen by the Crusaders of whom he was one. Ralf further represents Hugh as setting out for Acre with his forces immediately, and Richard with the rest of the host following next day; whereas Ambrose distinctly says that the French quitted Beit Nuba at the same time as the king (Est., ll. 10709-10). The Itinerarium, 397, says the same.

[956] Bohadin, 315.

[957] “Quatre liues,” Est., l. 10690; “quatuor tantum nunc distabant millia,” Itin., 396. Beit Nuba is about thirteen miles from Jerusalem. Seemingly “liues” and “millia” here must stand for hours of march, as Stubbs says they often do in Crusade history.

[958] Itin., 376. This passage follows the account of an event which the same writer dates June 17, and other authorities June 16.

[959] “Par la Porte David estoit la voie qui maine en Belleem. Em mi voie estoit une Esglyze ou Seint Elie fu mananz,” Contin. W. Tyr., MS. Rothelin, Recueil Hist. Occid., ii. 512. R. Howden, iii. 182, calls the place “capellam S. Elyae quae distat a Jerusalem per tres leucas.” As the distance between Jerusalem and Bethlehem is about six miles, Roger must here have used the word leuca as equivalent to a mile (as the author of the Itinerarium seems to have done frequently). On the other hand, there appears to be a mistake in the passage from the Rothelin MS.; seeing that “David’s Gate” was the west gate of Jerusalem, and that Bethlehem lies south of that city, the natural “way that leads to Bethlehem” would be by the “Gate of Sion.”

[960] Est., ll. 10089-135; Itin., 377, 378. Both writers give the date as “the third day before S. John’s,” and the Latin one adds “die S. Albani,” i. e. June 22. On June 22, however, Richard was, as we have seen, at Galatia. Roger of Howden’s account of the affair (iii. 182) is obviously confused. He gives no date; but in his work, as in the Estoire and the Itinerarium, the story is immediately followed by that of the Egyptian caravan. Probably therefore the true date is Sunday, June 21.

[961] R. Coggeshall, 40, 41.

[962] Joinville, c. 108.

[963] Bohadin, 315; Est., ll. 10704-5.

[964] Bohadin, 316.

[965] Bohadin, 316-22; obviously more authentic than the version in Est., ll. 10747-63, and Itin., 398, 399.

[966] Est., ll. 10706-14; Itin., 397, giving the date.

[967] Est., ll. 10768-85; Itin., 399-401. The date of leaving Joppa comes from Bohadin, 322, that of the arrival at Acre from Itin., 400-1.

[968] Est., ll. 10935-55; Itin., 403-4. (The dates will appear from the sequel.) The former writer seems to imply, and the latter distinctly states, that Richard had really and avowedly called his ships together for the purpose of sailing at once for Europe, the attack on Beyrout being intended as a mere incident on the way. I cannot believe this view of the matter to be based on anything else than an erroneous impression current among the lower ranks of the host. Richard may very likely have hoped that the capture of Beyrout would lead to fresh overtures for peace on the part of the Moslems, and to such concessions from them as might enable him to make a treaty which would end the war for a time, and thus set him honourably free to depart before the date which he had fixed; he may have made preparations for such a contingency, and if so, he would no doubt make them openly because a possibility of their purpose being misconstrued could hardly occur to his mind. Richard might break a treaty or a contract without scruple, and also without appreciable damage to his reputation in his own day; but a sudden desertion of the Holy Land such as these writers supposed him to have contemplated would have been a flagrant breach of what he and every other man of the world of chivalry held far more sacred than any treaty or contract—his knightly word, solemnly and publicly pledged only a few weeks before. Such an act must infallibly have brought upon him, in his own eyes and in the eyes of all true knights, a double share of the “shame and everlasting contempt” which he had once denounced against Philip Augustus, and would be utterly irreconcileable with his whole character. The Beyrout project seems really to have been much more definite and important than we should gather from the casual way in which it is mentioned by the two Frank chroniclers. It had evidently been planned in concert with the other leaders before Richard left Joppa, since as early as July 22—five days before the king reached Acre—Saladin had learned from his spies that “the Franks were moving on Beyrout”; Bohadin, 322.

[969] Bohadin, 322, 323; dates, which he gives in his usual self-contradictory fashion, corrected by help of Est., ll. 10807-10, and Itin., 400, 401.

[970] Cf. Bohadin, 327, 328, Itin., 401-3, and Est., ll. 10815-25.

[971] Est., ll. 10910, 10911.

[972] Both Estoire, ll. 10957-63, and Itinerarium, 404, say the messengers reported that Joppa was already taken and the garrison shut up in the citadel; but the sequel shows that they reached Acre on the date given above, July 28, three days before matters had come to this pass.

[973] Est., ll. 10968-76; Itin., 504. Cf. R. Coggeshall, 41, 42.

[974] Cf. Itin., 404, 405, Est., ll. 10979-11037, and R. Coggeshall, 42. The Estoire (ll. 11033-7) says they lay off Joppa “tote la nuit del samedi”; which can be correct only if Ambrose has here fallen, as some of the Frank chroniclers of the Crusade seem to have occasionally done, into the eastern way of reckoning days, from evening to evening.

[975] Est., ll. 10021-4.

[976] Bohadin, 328-31.

[977] Itin., 405, 406; cf. Est., ll. 11040-54.

[978] Bohadin, 331, 332.

[979] Cf. Bohadin, 332, with Itin., 407, 408, and Est., ll. 11079-11113.

[980] Est., ll. 11114-26.

[981] Bohadin, 333.

[982] Itin., 407, 408; Est., ll. 11127-53; Bohadin, 332; R. Coggeshall, 43.

[983] Bohadin, 333.

[984] Est., ll. 11154-8; Itin., 408.

[985] Itin., 410, 411; Est., ll. 11164-238; cf. Bohadin, 333.

[986] R. Coggeshall, 43.

[987] Cf. the French translation of Bohadin, 334, with the Latin in Schultens’s edition, 252: “Cognitamque meam in bello operam praestabo.”

[988] Bohadin, 333-5. He dates the negotiations “evening of Saturday 19 Rajab” and the removal to Ramlah “Sunday 20 Rajab.” Saturday was really 20 Rajab = August 1. Here, as usual with eastern writers, “evening” stands for “eve,” i. e. the “vigil” or evening before.

[989] Ib., 335.

[990] Itin., 412; Est., ll. 11295-9.

[991] Itin., 413; Est., ll. 11318-27.

[992] Bohadin, 336; cf. R. Coggeshall, 44.

[993] Cf. R. Coggeshall, 44, 45, Itin., 414, 415, and Est., ll. 11379-407.

[994] R. Coggeshall, 44, cf. Itin., 420. The latter writer puts the episode of the Saracens re-occupying the town and Richard re-taking it at the end of his narrative of the fight, i. e. after the victory outside the walls; but as he introduces it with “Interea,” we cannot be sure where in the order of events he really meant to place it; and as R. Coggeshall’s information is derived from Hugh de Neville, who was in close attendance on the king during the fight, his narrative is probably correct.

[995] See details of the array in Itin., 416.

[996] R. Coggeshall, 44, 45; cf. Itin., l.c.

[997] “Ferme quinquaginta milites,” Itin., 413; “milites octoginta,” R. Coggeshall, 50.

[998] The Itin., 413, says fifteen, but R. Coggeshall, 46, says six horses and one mule. Bohadin—after remarking “I was not there, thank God!”—says some who were there told him the Christian knights numbered only nine, or at most seventeen (337); he, or his informants, doubtless reckoned as “knights” only those who were horsed. According to the Itin., 420, Richard gained two more horses, as soon as he entered the town, by killing their Turkish riders.

[999] “Un hardi serjant e nobile, Henri le Tyois, el conroi Portoit la baniere le roi,” Est., ll. 11432-4. “Serviens probissimus Hernicus Teutonicus, regis signifer,” Itin., 415. “Rex ... assumptis secum sex strenuis militibus cum regio vexillo,” R. Coggeshall, 55.

[1000] Itin., 420. This writer reduces the king’s mounted followers at this time to two, which of course is absurd.

[1001] R. Coggeshall, 46.

[1002] Itin., 420, 421.

[1003] Ib., 417.

[1004] R. Coggeshall, 47.

[1005] Ib.; cf. Itin., 416, 417, and Bohadin, 337.

[1006] R. Coggeshall, 48.

[1007] Ib.; cf. Itin., 417.

[1008] Bohadin, 337; cf. Ibn Alathyr, 64.

[1009] Ibn Alathyr, 65.

[1010] Bohadin, 337.

[1011] R. Coggeshall, 49.

[1012] Itin., 418; cf. Est., ll. 11510-32.

[1013] R. Coggeshall, 49-51.

[1014] Itin., 423.

[1015] Bohadin, 338.

[1016] Itin., 412. This seems to have been a not uncommon practice of the Turks.

[1017] Ib., 425; R. Coggeshall, 51.

[1018] Bohadin, 336.

[1019] “Saturday, 26 Rajab” says Bohadin, 338, but 26 Rajab was a Friday.

[1020] Bohadin, 338, 339.

[1021] Bohadin, 339-41.

[1022] Est., ll. 11725-49; Itin., 425-7.

[1023] Itin., 427; cf. R. Devizes, 75.

[1024] Est., ll. 11750-60; Itin., l.c.

[1025] Bohadin, 341, 342.

[1026] “Houat,” Bohadin, 342. Stubbs, in a note to Itin., 428, suggests this identification, which is rendered highly probable by the mention in R. Devizes, 69, of Hubert as concerned in the making of the truce.

[1027] Bohadin, 342-4.

[1028] Bohadin, 344.

[1029] Ib., 344-6. He says the truce was for three years and eight months from Wednesday 22 Shaban = October 1. Ibn Alathyr (Recueil, II. i. 65) says three years and eight months from September 1; Imad-ed-Din (apud Abu Shama, 78) says three years and three months, without any date; R. Diceto, ii. 305, and W. Newburgh, lib. iv. c. 29, make the period three years, three months, three weeks, three days and three hours from Easter 1193. Bohadin is unquestionably the best authority on the matter, especially as the final proposals on the Moslem side appear to have been actually written either by his own hand, or by the hand of the writer—whoever this may have been—who made the revised edition of his work, published with a Latin translation by Dr. Schultens at Leyden; so at least we gather from Schultens, 259—“Conscripsi quae convenerant, exaravique conditiones pacis.” The French version, which represents Bohadin’s original text, has merely “On rédigea,” etc.; so we are left in doubt whether the first person in the Leyden version represents Bohadin himself or his reviser.

Richard of Devizes (69-77) has a long and curious account of the circumstances relating to the truce. According to him, the first overtures were made and the preliminaries arranged by Hubert of Salisbury and Henry of Champagne without the knowledge of King Richard, and the matter was only referred to the king when it was so far advanced that, sick and bewildered as he was, he could do nothing but leave it in their hands and sanction their arrangements. This in itself is not impossible, nor is it irreconcileable with Bohadin’s narrative; but there are in Richard’s story details which are certainly incorrect—e. g., he makes Hubert and Henry apply to Safadin instead of Bedr-ed-Din, and introduces visits of Safadin in person to the camp at Joppa and to the king himself, all of which are unquestionably fictitious or imaginary.

[1030] Est., ll. 11801-26; Itin., 429, 430.

[1031] Bohadin, 348.

[1032] Ib., 349, 350; Est., ll. 11868-75; Itin., 432.

[1033] R. Devizes, 78.

[1034] Bohadin, 350.

[1035] Est., ll. 11835-8; Itin., 430.

[1036] Est., ll. 12257-70; Itin., 440.

[1037] Itin., 441; cf. Est., ll. 12271-2.

[1038] Rigord, 118.

[1039] Rigord (l.c.), says “secundo vendidit”; R. Howden, iii. 306, when recording Guy’s death in 1195, says “cui Rex Angliae vendiderat insulam Cypri.” But Roger himself says elsewhere (181), that when Henry was chosen King of Jerusalem “rex Angliae dedit in excambium regi Guidoni insulam de Cypre in vita sua tenendam.” Ralf of Coggeshall, who also (36) places the transaction after Henry’s election in April 1192, says, “Regi Guidoni concessit, accepto ejus homagio”; and W. Newburgh (lib. iv. c. 29) says, “mera liberalitate donavit.” The version given by all these latter writers can hardly fail to be the correct one; it is inconceivable that Guy could have had means for the purchase.

[1040] This in an inference from Rigord, 118, who seems to place the whole transaction at this time.

[1041] R. Diceto, ii. 106; Itin., 441.

[1042] Ll.cc; R. Howden, iii. 185, says October 8.

[1043] Bohadin, 348.

[1044] Eracle, Recueil, Hist. Occid., ii. 189.

[1045] Gerv. Cant., i. 513.